I have two drupal 7 sites and I want them to share content of a certain content type. I want to have this content stored in an external database. How could I make this happen with a custom module?
You can setup a Rest server.
Then you can use views to share the information you want.
Module: https://drupal.org/project/services
Maybe have a closer look on these modules:
Drupal Sync
Drupal Deploy
I didn't try out one of these so far, but I think it's what you are looking for.
Contents (ie. nodes) on a Drupal site are not stored in a single tables. The same tables are used to store content of different content type. Some of the tables are created dynamically when you add fields to a content type, or when you change their settings. So you cannot share some contents between two sites by simply sharing the table(s) used to store them.
As a rule of thumb, you cannot achieve anything complexe in Drupal by simply doing stuff at the database level. There is too much storage logic implemented in (PHP) code that cannot be ignored when accessing the DB. You should always base your solution on Drupal's API (and most of the time, not the DB layer API, but the high-level API such as the Node and Fields APIs).
That said, there is no core API to communicate between sites. I would use one of the site as the canonical source of the shared contents and the only site where they can be edited. Then somehow replicate these content on the second site. This can be done with the Services or RESTful Web Services module on the second site, and a custom module on the first site, used to push new contents and the updated contents to the second through a REST service.
Related
Want to make alfresco site read only in alfresco community 5.0 so that no one can make any changes or edit that during migration.
I already tried changing the user/group permissions but that method doesn't work properly. Is there any other way to make the sites read only?
You need to make all sites in read only mode and so entire Repository should be in read-only mode for migration!
Try this property in your alfresco-global.prop file
server.allowWrite=false
Please check this for reference
The best way to make a site read only would probably be to modify all members of that site to have the consumer role (this would prevent them for creating new content or editing any existing content).
Unfortunately there is no bulk capability built into the UI to do this, however it should be a relatively straightforward exercise to create an admin only custom WebScript to achieve this. It would necessary for the Admin to become the site manager of each site before attempting to change the role of each site member, but there is an API for doing this.
Alternatively (if you have only a few sites) then you could do this manually through the UI using the Site Management Admin Console page. Again, the Admin would need to become the Site Manager for each Site and then visit the site and change the role of every member.
As suggested by #DaveDraper in a former answer, you could setup site memberships to the consumer role. However, this won't take into account any special permission given on a particular node (folder/document) in that site either with or without inheritance of permission.
So, if you intend to block any writes on the entire alfresco repo/site you could simply setup an extra security interceptor on your NodeService to block any write access using the NodeService.
PS : You could get some inspiration from the "NodeService_security" bean and implementation !
I can think of a turn-around or two, but those would be really sloppy so I won't be including them in this response
ASP.NET 4.51, MVC 5
Have read Integrating a CMS into an established application-centric MVC website
We have a number of MVC applications that serve as public facing websites. The applications were built using MVC as that was the technology stack understood by the developers and primarily the content that was being delivered was based on business process data.
However more and more we are being asked to add "another page" to the websites which for all intents and purposes is a plain old static content page. This ultimately involves:
Adding a new route
Creating a view with the required HTML
We have various "home grown" solutions which now pull HTML from the database for these views. However this means we are writing custom back end data entry screens as well as 1 & 2 above.
So.... There must be a better way. Has anyone got any practical experience or suggestions on how to add simple CMS functionality that we can give to end users, plugged into our MVC application? We need to provide the following functionality to the end user:
Create new pages, edit pages using WYSIWYG
Add meta tags and canonical tags for SEO
Specify the url portion of the uri for SEO purposes
All insights appreciated.
Is it feasible to do the following:
Have a database table to house the content for these pages. e.g. title, summary, description, url, meta, image(s) etc...
In the front end have a template for these pages. The database data fills in the placeholders within this template.
Perhaps hold all the pages on a base URL like www.yoursite.com/page/dynamic-page-url-from-db
You can use the Remote attribute validation on the url field to make sure they are all unique in the database.
With this in mind, create a single Route to catch the requests and filter valid/invalid requests in the Page controller based on the URL provided with the db. If non-existent throw new HttpException(404, "Page Not Found"); and have an error handler pick that up and deliver your 404.
META could be set via ViewBag or a dedicated section that alters the _Layout file at the point of rendering the view.
TinyMCE is a decent WYSIWYG editor. You can even add dynamic image gallery functionality to it if you want to embed images within the main body of the pages.
I'm working on making a CMS currently used in a demanding production environment into a product. I've just (as of 20 Jan 2015) made a NuGet package which installs the CMS into an MVC project which should be possible to add to any existing MVC site without breaking it. CMS functionality can then be added where needed. Currently I'm looking to work with some users to help them get the CMS into production on their sites, however this may have changed by the time you read this. Look at http://www.lynicon.com for more information and to sign up to a Slack community where I can give you access to the NuGet package.
Not sure if this is stackoverflow typically question (I'll remove it if suggested), still may help me understand the possible options here.
I would like to know if it's somehow possible beside core, master and web instances to append new content database (let say for some form's filled with data by web users with CRUD repository using existing sitecore api). Editable/readonly from CMS, visible for exports, reports or charts via CMS using custom modules.
Somehow this DB should be located on the same level with Web Database, it's important to follow templates and functionality from sitecore legacy functionality.
This entire shebang will be used in as Sitecore Custom Module (installation, integration customization, management, blah, blah blah). Important: Items stored in this database are pure data items.
I found vague information on John west Sitecore blog, so what I asking more then the direct solution in front of my eyes references or examples how to, or signals if it's against the policy.
Best reference until now: http://intothecore.cassidy.dk/2009/05/working-with-multiple-content-databases.html article written by Mark Cassidy.
The reason you don't find much information on this is because its very uncommon to add another database which is accessible to Sitecore as per the john west blog. Note the data of that post also. I'm not aware of your requirements but I have never seen it done or found a need for it.
With user input data such as forms, comments etc. You have three data considerations storage, access and reporting. In a scenario where you would like to store this data and access it in Sitecore. I would approach it as follows:
Storage of that data should be in the master database inside a bucket. From version 7.0+ buckets were introduced so you can add virtually unlimited data to a Sitecore database. There was a buckets module which supported 6.3+ but appears to not be downloadable anymore: https://marketplace.sitecore.net/en/modules/sitecore_item_buckets.aspx. The code is out there though and possibly Sitecore support would even provide it.
The master database in a standard production environment (split content management and content delivery environments) if not accessible directly via connection string is made accessible by calling the Sitecore web API or creating a custom web service.
Requirements such as reporting and/or shared access to the data for other applications could possibly provide reasons to create a custom database but otherwise there is no reason not to store it in the master database.
You have to save the information filled by the user in Master database so that you can modify or use it using SItecore API.
Since the users filling the form may not have access to modify Sitecore Master DB. You would have to either switch the user to a user with least permissions required to make those changes(safer) or You would have to disable the security for a while and perform those tasks(not recommended). Both of these are explained in http://www.nehemiahj.com/2012/03/how-to-use-securitydisabler-and_15.html
And then add the form as an item in master db. If the number of form items created using this is more then use Sitecore Buckets.
I have been given a job to re-develop a news portal. The website already has couple of thousands of unique visits a day. I am going to develop it using ASP.NET webforms. I am currently in the planning phase and I am thinking to offer the main admin a page where he can change site specific configuration information. Some of these are;
Web site title "<title>"
site URL
footer text
default image directory
whether to accept comments without authorisation or not
I listed above some settings so that you can understand my scenario better.
What I can't decide is, where to store all this information. Do I store them in a DB (costly?), a custom XML file? or a .config file. e.g. ConfigurationManager.AppSettings
Any pros or cons would make my day!
Thank you!
My opinion is to store them on web.config on WebConfigurationManager.OpenWebConfiguration().GetSection() because this variables are critical and change only ones - in the initialize of the site.
For example the default image directory is stay the same for the rest of the site life, the same and the site URL the same and the other.
Also when you change this settings probably you need also a restart of the web application because for sure you need to re-read them on some static variables.
And because this variables are stay as is, and need them for start the web (then you read the database and the rest) you need to have it in first hand, from the web.config.
I'm writing a pretty straight forward ASP.NET MVC web app: only a couple of CRUD pages, some folders where clients can browse documents and just 3 or 4 roles. The website will be used in a B2B scenario, where every client will have their "own" website.
At this point, the only thing that will change in the website, from client to client is the content (ie. the documents, and the rows of data they'll see). If this is the case, what's the best way to manage roles across all of my clients? I'm looking for the simplest possible solution because this is a proof of concept and I don't want to invest a lot of time right now.
What if it's not just the content that changes? Maybe some clients will want a few custom static pages. At this point, is my only option replicating the entire website? I'm leery of this because it'll become hard to maintain if I get a lot of clients.
I'd appreciate any help... I just don't want to shoot myself in the foot; I'm sure someone has done this before.
I create Virtual Directories in IIS for each client, all pointed back to the same folder where my ASP.NET code resides.
This allows me to support several dozen nearly-identical "web sites," each with their own database that is basically identical in form, only differs in data.
So, my site URLs look like:
http://mysite.com/clientacme/
http://mysite.com/clientbill/
http://mysite.com/clientcharlie/
There are two key implementation details I worked out for this:
I use the Virtual Directory folder name to determine which DSN my code reads from. This is accomplished by creating a simple static method that injects the folder name into a DSN string template. If you want to use the same database to store everyone's data, you can use the folder name as a default filter in your queries.
I store the settings for each web site (headers and footers, options, links to custom reports, etc.) in a simple "settings" table in each database (key, value) rather than in the web.config (which is shared). This allows me to extend the code base over time to customize the experience for each client without forking the code.
For user authentication, I use Basic authentication, and I keep usernames, passwords, and roles in a table in each database.
The important thing is that if you use different SQL Server databases for each client's content, you need to script any changes to your database tables, indexes, etc. and apply them across all databases at the same time (after testing of course). One simple way to do this is to maintain an Excel sheet with a table of database names and a big "SQL" cell at the top. Beside each database name, create a formula to "USE databasename;" and then concat the SQL code at the top.
I'm not sure if this answers your question completely, but as far as maintaining custom "static" pages I found myself implementing a system on a client's MVC website where the client can create "Pages" from their admin control panel and each Page has a collection of "PageContent" entities which consist of a Title and and HTML content field (populated using a WYISWYG editor). Upon creating a page the MVC application maps http://yoursite.com/Page/Page-Url-Specified-By-The-User to that page and renders its content there. Obviously, the pages are dynamic, but as far as the client can tell they have created a brand new custom page with little or no effort.